Somehow I think that's on ufw not docker. A firewall shouldn't depend on applications playing by their rules.

Once upon a time, Stephen Colbert ('s character) uttering "It's a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias" was regarded as satire. Now, I wouldn't be so sure.

I don't think this image shows her being in a position to backpedal from. I see her providing him with a platform to counter some points that were made elsewhere; she has not necessarily taken a position one way or the other.

🎶 Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger 🎶

Is OOP that bad?

Unless you bring a solution to the table, taking the position that it isn't impossible is just cheap contrarianism on your part. Sure we can try new things, but if it doesn't work and everyone is commenting the approach isn't helping, then maybe take the hint. Or not, and keep swimming against the stream (in which - seeing OP's other comments - they seem to be more interested than actually solving the problem)

I'm not American so it shouldn't concern me, but fuck you're a bunch of idiots.

I think this is the way to go if it doesn't frustrate further development too much. Kinda risky to pull the old app out of stores and see the blissfully unaware part of your userbase leave for a competitor.

In my opinion, basic human rights such as adequate housing shouldn't be left solely to the free market. That's just asking for human rights violations.

That said I'm kind of disappointed in how black and white this issue is usually dealt with on lemmy (I get the feeling most users have the opinion: capitalism equals evil)

In my ideal society, we as a society would facilitate basic housing for people where needed. Everything above the basic necessity of a roof above your head and a place for yourself (adequate housing), I think can be left up to the free market. I think the prices of the free market would be more 'proportional' if the free market knows it can't ask ludicrous prices because there's basic housing as a safety net.

You are confused, this isn't the onion.

I was under the impression that the 'natural selection' part of evolution already made its non-randomness well understood. maybe this discovery is more about the mutation part of evolution?